Innovative Capability and Financing Constraints for Innovation: More Money, More Innovation?

Transcription

1 Innovative Capability and Financing Constraints for Innovation: More Money, More Innovation? Hanna Hottenrott and Bettina Peters Presented by 陈亚会

2 Introduction Discussion Paper from European Economic Research (ZEW), Published in Review of Economics and Statistics, Keywords: Innovation, Financing constraints, Innovative capability, Multivariate probit models 2

3 Part I Introduction 3

4 Introduction Economic theory stresses that financing constraints may occur due to imperfections on capital markets. Information asymmetries may affect investments in innovation projects. Financing innovation externally may be more costly compared to other investment. and internal funds are not inexhaustible. Financing constraints may not affect all firms to the same extent in innovation projects. 4

5 Introduction which firms face financing constraints in innovation? 1) previous empirical ( indirectly): sensitivity of R&D investment to changes in internal funds etc. 2)This paper takes a direct approach based on the idea of an ideal test by Hall (2008). The survey test:firms were asked to imagine that they receive additional cash exogenously and to indicate how they would spend it. If invest in innovation project all or partly,then it is financially constrained. 5

6 Introduction What factors effect the financing constraints for firm's investments in innovation projects? 1) the availability of internal funds and the costs of external funds etc. 2) innovative capability (for increasing resource requirements). 6

7 Introduction This paper's contributions to the literature in three aspects: 1) employ a direct indicator derived from survey. 2)account for the firm's choice between alternative uses of the money in econometric analysis,and get some interesting results. 3) introduce innovative capability and find financial constraints are driven by it through increasing resource requirements. 7

8 Part II Literature review 8

9 Literature review 1 Theoretical arguments for financing constraints: imperfect markets and information asymmetries influence lending and investment decisions, the cost of different kinds of capital may vary by type of investment (Meyer and Kuh 1957,Leland and Pyle 1977, Myers and Majluf 1984). Investment in innovation get higher degree of asymmetric information,and few reveal details to potential investors for competition (Stiglitz and Weiss 1981, Greenwald, Stiglitz and Weiss 1984, Bhattacharya and Ritter 1983, Anton and Yao 2002).so the cost is higher. 9

10 Literature review 1 Theoretical arguments for financing constraints: Poduct' intangible nature, investment sunk and not redeployed, not immediately lead to success etc make external fund more costly for innovation projects than for other types of investment.(alderson and Betker 1996,Hall 1990, 2002) Firms indeed first use internal funds to finance innovation projects(leland and Pyle 1977, Hall 1992, Himmelberg and Peterson 1994, Bougheas,Görg and Strobl 2003, Czarnitzki and Hottenrott 2009) Consequently,the extent to which financial constraints are binding depends on the firms' ability to raise external or internal funds 10

11 Literature review 2 Empirical Evidence Measuring and identifying 1) Since Fazzari, Hubbard and Petersen (1988),econometric studies have tried to detect financial constraints by analyzing investments' sensitivities to changes in available financial resources(cash-flow). 2)Furthermore,researchers usually split their sample or focus on a particular group of firms in order to observe more than an average effect. Some factors such as:firm size age (Himmelberg and Peterson 1994, Czarnitzki 2006, Hottenrott 2009) governance structures (Czarnitzki and Kraft 2004), industry patterns (Hall 1992, Bloch 2005) 11

12 Literature review 2 Empirical Evidence Some results 1)A positive relationship between R&D activity and cash flow (Hall 1992,Himmelberg 1994 ). 2)Bond et al. (2006) detect cash flow determines whether a UK firm does R&D, but not how much, and not find for Germany. 3)A negative association between debt and R&D activity for US not Japanese, (Bhagat and Welch 1995),yet, not observe any relationship between cash flow and R&D for US and UK firms. 4)Other finding: older and bigger companies are less restricted(berger and Udell 2002,Müller and Zimmermann 2006); higher financing constraints on innovation for firms in high-tech sectors and for smaller firms (Canepa and Stoneman 2002) 12

13 Literature review 2 Empirical Evidence Limitations 1) data availability. 2) conceptual set-up. whether the relationship between cash flow and investment is a suffcient indication of financial constraints(fazzari et al and Aydogan 2003) Investigate access to external funds by credit(czarnitzki 2006,Piga 2007) 3)survey data adopt more direct approaches(canepa and Stoneman 2002, Savignac 2008, Tiwari, Mohnen, Palm etc 2007). neglect the competion between alternative options. 4) none of the empirical studies consider the role of innovative capability 13

14 Part III Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses 14

15 Theoretical Framework Theoretical model: draw from a simple model by Howe al (1976) and Hall al (2000,2008),and use it explore how innovative capability affects financing constraints for innovation. Define{IC i,d i,i i,x i ; R i e,o, IF i, W i} Assume: in each period firm i has a certain set of ideas for innovation. firm ranks projects according to their ERR in descending order.(d) a pecking order MRR i = f ( I i, IC i, X i ) MCC i = f( I i,r e,o i, IF i,w i ) Equating MRR iand MCC i yields reduced form for optimal investment (I i ) I = h (IC i,r e,o i,if i, X i,w i ). 15

16 Theoretical Framework Prove the assume: Invesing the addition cash to innovation means firm is financially constrained. Figure1: Unconstrained vs constrained firm 16

17 Theoretical Framework Show: Would innovative capability affect financial constraints for innovation? IC A < IC B D A <D B IF A =IF B MCC A =MCC B Figure 2(a): B constrained and A unconstrained 17

18 Theoretical Framework Show: The effection from different innovative capability lead to financial constraints for innovation. IC A < IC B D A <D B IF A =IF B MCC A =MCC B Figure 2(b) :Both constrained 18

19 Theoretical Framework Show: How internal financing affect the financing constraints in innovation? IC A = IC B, D A =D B IF A < IF B MCC A > MCC B CASH A = CASH B Figure 3(a) :Both constrained 19

20 Theoretical Framework Show: The degree of financingn constraints for firms faced different gap between C int and C ext? IC A = IC B, D A =D B IF A = IF B W A < W B MCC A > MCC B CASH A = CASH B Figure 3(b):Both constrained 20

21 Hypotheses Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Given the same level of internal funds, firms with higher innovative capability should be more likely to be constrained than firms with lower innovative capability. Hypothesis 2: Given the same level of innovative capability, firms with lower financial resources should be more likely to be constrained. Hypothesis 3: Firms that face a larger gap between C int and C ext, should be more likely to be financially constrained. 21

22 Part IV Empirical 22

23 Empirical 1 Data and Sample Data :from 2007 wave of the Mannheim Innovation Panel (MIP) Sample: 2,468 firms in manufacturing industries (divided into 15 industries) which with at least 5 employees in the German business sector. 23

24 Empirical 2 Measuring financing constraints CASH amount to 10% of the firms last year's turnover. Six response options: investment projects innovation projects reserves payout to shareholders repayment of debt. Main dependent variable : CON and TYPE 1) A firm is considered to be financially constrained if it would invest additional funds in innovation projects (CON = 1, otherwise CON = 0). 2) If the firm not invest in additional innovation projects.( TYPE = 0) partly invest ( TYPE = 1) exclusively invest ( TYPE = 2) 24

25 Empirical 3 Innovative Capability and Lack of Financing Define: firm liquidity (M ~Money) and innovative capability (B ~ Brain) 1) IF the share of highly qualified personnel or the expenditure on training per employee is larger than the 80th percentile,then it is B H, otherwise B L. Other studies by firm's R&D expenditure or past innovation success. ( robustness test) 2) Use profit margin (r) measure the availability of internal funds. M L ( r < 0 ) M M ( 0 < r < 7%) M H ( 7% < r) Get 6 groups of firms that differ in their Resource Endowments. 25

26 Empirical 4 Control Variables Capital intensity is measured by the value of firms' assets per employee (KAPINT) 2016/12/22 26

27 Empirical 5 Descriptive Statistics Table 1: Summary statistic 27

28 Part V Econometric Analysis 28

29 Econometric Analysis y = β 0 + β 1 B H M L + β 2 B H M M + β 3 B H M H + β 4 B L M L + β 5 B L M M +β 6 B L M H + β k Z k + ε Z includes the control variables defined before and a set of 14 industry dummies. 1)Estimate the likelihood of being financially constrained by using a probit model P(CON = 1 X = x) = f (x) = Φ(x' β) 2)Next, proxy the degree of constraints by (TYPE) and estimate ordered Probit models (Greene 2003, ) 3) Finally, account for the firm's choice between alternatives uses, simultaneously estimate multi-equation Probit models 29

30 Econometric Analysis 30

31 Econometric Analysis 31

32 Econometric Analysis 32

33 Econometric Analysis 4 Robustness Checks Employ alternative proxies for innovative capability. 1) use different cut-off-points. 2) using the share of R&D employees. 3)based on successful innovation projects in the past ( observe if the firm has introduced at least one new product to the market in the pre-survey period) 33

34 Econometric Analysis 34

35 Econometric Analysis 4 Robustness Checks The quasi-experiment depend on the fact whether a firm was already engaged in innovation activities. Estimate a two-stage selection model for both CON and TY PE. stage 1: firms' export intensity (EXINT) and the diversification of its product portfolio (DIV ERS) But,the likelihood-ratio-test does not reject the hypothesis of independence of stage. Thus, selectivity does not seem to play a role. 35

36 Part VI Conclusion 36

37 Conclusion From theoritical framework and empirical : 1)Firms with higher innovative capability are more likely to befinancing constrainted; 2)Firms with high innovative capability and low levels of internal funds are more likely to be constrained in their innovation activities than their more liquid counterparts; 3)Firms faced a larger gap between internal and external cost of capital should be more likely to be financially constrained. 37

38 Conclusion From a policy point of view: 1)A significant portion of firms is financially constrained, particularly firms with high innovation capability.; Policy should stimulate the provision of risk-taking external capital and provide public funding. 2)Innovative capability would drive financing constraints in innovative investment. Policy should regard innovative capability as an important criterion for supporting private investment in innovation. 38

39 39